Misplaced Pages

:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mishlai (talk | contribs) at 15:09, 22 October 2008 (oops). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:09, 22 October 2008 by Mishlai (talk | contribs) (oops)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    ShortcutsSections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge)
    This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Misplaced Pages to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution procedural policy.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page.
     You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Additional notes:
    • This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
    • Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
    • The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
    • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:
    1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.
    2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.
    3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.
    • Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest guideline.
    Are you in the right place?
    Notes for volunteers
    To close a report
    • Add Template:Resolved at the head of the complaint, with the reason for closing and your signature.
    • Old issues are taken away by the archive bot.
    Other ways to help
    To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests Talk:260 Collins Talk:Academy of Achievement Talk:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers Talk:Pamela Anderson Talk:Aspen Dental Talk:Atlantic Union Bank Talk:AvePoint Talk:Edward J. Balleisen Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist) Talk:Neil Barofsky Talk:BEE Japan Talk:Bell Bank Talk:Bobbie (company) Talk:Edouard Bugnion Talk:Gráinne de Búrca Talk:Cannabis in Germany Talk:Captions (app) Talk:Charles Martin Castleman Talk:Pamela Chesters Talk:Cloudinary Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Covivio Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:Dell Technologies Template talk:Editnotices/Page/List of Nintendo franchises Talk:Foster and Partners Talk:Richard France (writer) Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel) Talk:Genuine Parts Company Talk:Dan Gilbert Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Group-IB Talk:Holly Ham Talk:Hilary Harkness Talk:Hearst Communications Talk:Daymond John Talk:Norma Kamali Talk:Scott Kurashige Talk:Andrew Lack (executive) Talk:David Lalloo Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss Talk:List of PEN literary awards Talk:Los Angeles Jewish Health Talk:Anne Sofie Madsen Talk:Laurence D. Marks Talk:Alexa Meade Talk:Metro AG Talk:Modern Meadow Talk:Alberto Musalem Talk:NAPA Auto Parts Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting Talk:Matthew Parish Talk:PetSmart Charities Talk:Philly Shipyard Talk:Polkadot (blockchain platform) Talk:QuinStreet Talk:Prabhakar Raghavan Talk:Michael Savage (politician) Talk:Sharp HealthCare Talk:SolidWorks Talk:Vladimir Stolyarenko Talk:Sysco Talk:Tamba-Sasayama Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa Talk:Tencent Talk:Tencent Cloud Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:TKTS Talk:Trendyol Talk:Lorraine Twohill Talk:Loretta Ucelli Talk:Ughelli Power Plant Talk:University of California, San Diego School of Medicine Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Alex Wright (author) Talk:Xero (company) Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    Possible autobiographies found by bot

    • User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult   This is the large mechanically-generated list of articles having a suspected COI that used to be shown here in full. You are still invited to peruse the list and, if you have an opinion on whether it's a real COI, edit that file directly. When you see a case in that list that needs input from other editors, you may want to create a regular noticeboard entry for it, below.

    Requested edits

    • Category:Requested edits.  Editors who believe they have a Conflict of Interest may ask someone else to make edits for them. Please visit this category and respond to one of these requests. Whether you perform it or not, you should undo the {{Request edit}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requestor to explain your decision.

    Mikegooderson (talk · contribs), Coldwinterday (talk · contribs), 81.192.195.118 (talk · contribs), 81.192.167.196 (talk · contribs), 81.192.191.48 (talk · contribs): problematic pattern of contributions to Tahir Shah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and other articles

    Overview: History of promotional, possibly self-serving edits and article creations, with apparent use of multiple user IDs (sockpuppets). Possible candidate for Checkuser, although from the evidence (unbroken strings of edits, some under IP, some under user names) it seems fairly clear that we are dealing only with one person.

    According to geobytes, all the IPs involved hail from Casablanca, Morocco, the place of residence of the article subject of Tahir Shah.

    Previous talk page requests to comply with COI and core content policies: , .

    Examples of problematic edits:

    • Mikegooderson creates The Phararoh Code (with misspelt title): . The article Pharaoh code has been deleted twice before: . Article cites no third-party reliable sources and appears to exist solely to promote Tahir Shah's theory.
    • Coldwinterday inserts circular reference (using a Misplaced Pages mirror site) to Tahir Shah's Qantara Foundation, which appears to lack independent notability: . Undone by another editor: Mikegooderson steps in and inserts references to another open wiki that uses Misplaced Pages content:
    • Coldwinterday edits Tahir Shah to describe the father of Tahir Shah as "legendary": ; the cited source (the New York Times) describes him as "well-known", as our article said. (Ironically, Tahir Shah's father was accused by critics of self-aggrandisement, and self-publishing an unparalleled corpus of pseudonymous literature in adulation of himself.)
    • IP 81.192.167.196 reinserts unsupported claim that Tahir Shah holds various memberships and honorary titles: , . I insert fact templates after the claims: . Now, an hour later, IP 81.192.195.118 adds Tahir Shah as a club member in the article on the Travellers Club, again without RS support: , and shortly after adds the edited Travellers Club article as a reference for Tahir Shah's membership in the Travellers Club in Tahir Shah: . Note that it is quite possible, even likely, that Shah is a member of the said clubs; his father was a member of the Athenaeum club, and some of these things are hereditary; but I don't think it is encyclopedically relevant to the Tahir Shah article if no reliable source has commented upon it, making it essentially unverifiable for our readers.
    • IP adds various chunks of unsourced material serving to enhance Tahir Shah in the reader's eyes in Tahir Shah: ("His work is characterized by an extraordinary attention to detail and characters, and is regarded as unusually original, a fusion of styles.")

    To be clear, Tahir Shah is a notable and talented author, with congratulatory coverage in top-class newspapers, as well as a filmmaker, a book reviewer for the Washington Post, a writer of screenplays and much besides.

    It is all the more puzzling that these accounts, rather than capitalising on the good press coverage there is on the man, seek to inflate his achievements with unsourced claims and fawning descriptions. Here is an example of the state the article was in after one of the user's recent editing sessions:

    To be fair, I will grant that some of the contributions made by the above IDs have been pertinent, if invariably flattering to the subject.

    The problem is long-standing; here, in 2006, yet another Casablancan IP deletes "copyedit" and "verify" tags, they are restored by the other user, and then the same Casablancan IP deletes them again the next day.

    None of the user IDs concerned has so far responded to talk page messages. Over to you guys. Jayen466 19:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

    User(s) concerned has been notified of this thread: , , . Jayen466 20:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

    More of the same: , misspelt title, POV and unsourced. Jayen466 11:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Title spelling now fixed, page moved. Jayen466 21:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

    I agree wholeheartedly Jayen. The editor/s have created or contributed to several articles promoting possible associates, sometimes with backlinks to Tahir Shah. 81.192.186.193 (Morocco again) unilaterally deleted two sections of Idries Shah, Tahir Shah's father, without first or subsequently discussing. These sections were critical of his father. EricT (talk) 11:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
    Okay, I missed that one. It's another Casablanca IP: Special:Contributions/81.192.186.193, diff link. Jayen466 12:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
    It appears there haven't been any further edits by the user(s) in the last week or so. What to do? Mothball this thread until they come back? Jayen466 18:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
    Special:Contributions/Coldwinterday has recently created several articles on books by Tahir Shah. Looks like a major marketing exercise. See that article for the list. EricT (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

    I note at least we now have references, some of them from bona fide sources. There appear to be copyright problems with the book covers (see the talk page of Coldwinterday (talk · contribs)), but the sourcing appears to be a step in the right direction. Would appreciate an uninvolved editor looking the articles over:

    Cheers, Jayen466 17:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

    A casual look at just Trail of Feathers and In Arabian Nights and a google search reveals that much of the description is to be found on other published pages. See articles' talk pages. Cleanup-rewrite? Uninvolved editors' help, please. EricT (talk) 08:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
    You are right, much is lifted from the sites you indicated. I second the call for an uninvolved editor's help. Jayen466 14:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
    The books certainly merit articles: could someone tag the relevant pages as (say) requiring a rewrite to meet standards, rather than their being unnecessarily deleted? EricT (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
    I would agree that most, if not all, the books are notable enough, and have had detailed coverage in multiple RS (not all of it reflected necessarily in the articles as they stand). Jayen466 15:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

    COI with Bert Convy

    User Bert Convy keeps editing the Gary Trauner article with obvious bias. Especially, since it's the only article he's edited, I'm suspicious that he's working for the Lummis campaign. BeIsKr (talk) 05:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

    I commented on the article's talk page. Arakunem 14:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, he's still at it, inserting links either to Trauner's opponent's website or to an anti-Trauner propaganda site into the middle of the article, depending on his mood. BeIsKr (talk) 06:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
    I've left BC/JW a specific note on the inappropriate external links, as well as some additional commentary on the talk page. Arakunem 00:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

    William Eric Alexander

    Radionut (talk · contribs) has declared himself as the subject of the article on William Eric Alexander. he has been today informed of wp:coi policy. his contributions have at times been disruptive and war-ish, and is suspected of using the ip puppets, 71.126.34.110 (talk · contribs), 71.126.39.195 (talk · contribs), and Netio99 (talk · contribs). --emerson7 17:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

    He seems to be taking a lot of liberty with our policies. Under WP:BLP, article subjects can remove what they see as incorrect information, but he's been fearlessly making edits against the WP:Manual of style and deleting material without explanation. Considering that Alexander is not at present on the radio but is trying to get recognition for his podcast, the article may lack notability. I suggest that an WP:AFD might be considered. If the article is to be kept, the blocking policy will need to be explained to several editors, who may (in fact) all be the same person. I have notified User:Radionut of this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 04:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    Article has now been proposed for deletion under WP:PROD, due to insufficient reliable sources to show importance per WP:BIO. EdJohnston (talk) 03:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

    bluepulse - notable? bias?

    BluePulse is a web 2.0 start up. They sort of have a marketing campaign going but I don't know if it has users/notability except for coverage on a few startup blogs. I was first attracted into googling them after seeing that their iTunes ratings were being gamed. (If anyone has iTunes, they are in the app store). I was wondering if anyone could look through the history of edits, check notability, and see if they're complying with rules and such. Because I know not how to handle (There may indeed be no problem, I'm not very familiar). --Drinkadrink (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

    The Bluepulse article is basically OK but it would benefit from a rewrite by somebody familiar with Misplaced Pages style. All the awards, for example, might be trimmed or summarized. Phrases like: well positioned to be the major player in the mobile social messaging space could be replaced by something more neutral. Their chief claim to fame is that their beta was downloaded 3 million times. They've also received $6 million in venture capital. Some of the references seem to be saying 'their features sound great.' Nobody seems to describe actual experience with using their service. Do you want to take a crack at improving the article? EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
    OK. I'll (try to) strip some of the crufty stuff out. --Drinkadrink (talk) 23:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
    I'm going to move this to Talk:Bluepulse. --Drinkadrink (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
    I've added a proposed deletion notice to this article. EdJohnston (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

    WP:SPA campaign at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Alan_Hshieh

    This message approved by: VG ☎ 12:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

    MISRA C++ article and User:Phaedsys

    Resolved

    Phaedsys username blocked by another admin as promotional, IP editor warned. Doug Weller (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

    Phaedsys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - also apparently User:80.176.226.26, see contributions from each and spelling of vandalism - editing MISRA C++ on behalf of the Misra project, giving other editors orders. Doug Weller (talk) 13:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

    Apologies, should have added this link to ANI where this was first raised. Doug Weller (talk) 13:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

    Cadence Quest

    AfD
    Accounts (coi spas)
    Articles

    These accounts have been creating, editing, and re-creating articles which so far have been deleted at least five times. Is it perhaps time for blocks for advertising / sockpuppeting and page protection for the article titles which may be used? — Athaenara ✉ 21:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

    If they do it again, you should definitely salt the pages. MER-C 13:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

    Charlie Winton

    While working on a series of articles related to publishing, I ran across an article about book publisher Charlie Winton. I looked at the editing history and noticed that the creator and main editor of the page was a User talk:kwinton. Perhaps the name is just a coincidence. I am backing off of editing it for now. The article on its face seems sound, with not an excessive number of superlatives affecting its tone, but it currently does not reference problems in the publishing industry such as those in this article, which quotes Winton: http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/06/21/independent_press/print.html - Please advise on how best to handle this. --Larrybob (talk) 04:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

    Interesting case...

    I'm not entirely sure if this is more a question about WP:COI or WP:RS; a little of each, perhaps. User:Daytonapost provided this diff, which cites--wait for it--the Daytona Post. As a subsequent editor pointed out, there are serious accusations here in need of citing, but apart from that, is it acceptable for this user to cite this source--and no others--in making accusations of this weight? Gladys J Cortez 22:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

    The Daytona Post does not appear to me to be a reliable source, though I'd have to suss it out a little more to be sure. Regardless, WP:RS is the salient issue here; either the source is reliable or it isn't, and the user name or identity of the editor adding the information isn't at issue. There are obvious WP:NPOV issues, too, of course. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
    Actually, it turned out not to take much more sussing at all: it's a blogspot-powered blog. Clearly not reliable, absent some evidence of editorial oversight or recognized expertise on the part of the (anonymous) author. I'd say nuke information supported by that source and warn the editor, followed if need be by blocking. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
    Yeah, I just e/c'ed w you to mention that it's an "online newspaper" and that the article regarding same had been speedied back in July AFTER having been created by our good friend Daytonapost. So...next question, does this count as a role account, or not so much?Gladys J Cortez 23:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
    Seems to be, yes (see userlinks above). Not a Misplaced Pages:Role account but clearly a promotional coi spa. — Athaenara ✉ 05:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

    Thacher Proffitt self-promotion

    The below item was posted to the talk page here. Brought here to the project page for the appropriate desired comment. The issue, in my view, is that there are an number of analysis like this, published for law-firm clients, and occasionally visible to the larger world. The particular item in question actually is informative, and not available in the standard media yet--in any form; the source is reliable, but the item was apparently posted by a self-promotional effort, or an account name that pretends to make it a self promotional effort. See below.
    -- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

    If they are the best source, they are the best source even if there is some commercial motive. DGG (talk) 03:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
    They're more like the first source. We'll probably be able to find a better one in a week or so, when the weekly business magazines start to analyze the situation. At this very moment, writers are frantically cranking out the first books on the bailout, and academics are trying to get the first papers submitted. I've been reading one guy who's going through microfilms on the Panic of 1873, looking for parallels. We're going to be buried in reliable sources in a few weeks, and people will be writing about these events for the next century. Let's wait a bit and then dump the link to this quickie piece. --John Nagle (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
    They're at it again. They put two more links to themselves in Troubled Assets Relief Program. I removed those and put in a reference to an article in Forbes instead. The financial press is catching up; there's no shortage of reliable sources. If you search Google for the names of the documents to which they're linking, they come up in press releases and sites that redisplay press releases. This looks like an organized promotional effort. --John Nagle (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
    Thacher Proffitt (talk · contribs) linkspammed another article; they were indef blocked and reverted. --John Nagle (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
    This editor was blocked for inappropriate username. In principle they might start up again under a new name. We should probably keep this report open for another day or two to see what happens. I'm not 100% sure of the meaning of {{uw-spamublock}}, but I think it means they can come back. EdJohnston (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
    {{uw-spamublock}} is a username block focusing on the spamminess of the username, in distinction to {{uw-soablock}} where the name might not be lexically related to the entity spammed for. The "spamblock" link in WP:UAA reports defaults to Account Creation Prohibited (ACP) but not IP autoblock, although either of those can be tweaked at the admin's discretion. If the user comes back with a new account or edits as an IP, we can obviously make new blocks as appropriate. --MCB (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

    Link tracking data follows. MER-C 13:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

    http://spam.tpw.com

    Lilith Astaroth

    Resolved – Page deleted. MER-C 13:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

    A prod lasted over five days so the article should have been deleted, but User:Lilithastaroth went to the BLP noticeboard and said she objected to the deletion, so someone removed the prod saying it was because she did had objected there and because the prodder was a newish editor, although the time limit had elapsed (?) Is that a new way in accordance with policy for people to avoid getting their articles deleted if no-one who happens to come across the article without being asked to do what she wants will remove the prod? Anyway it's up at AfD now, but she of course has a COI so I thought I'd let you know. Sticky Parkin 12:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

    Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher - Censorship of unfavorable information

    I have been trying to add information on this entry regarding a major case here in Montana where punitive damages were assessed against this law firm, but somebody with a Utah IP address keeps deleting it. I suspect he/she has a conflict of interest for the reason that he has removed this information three times now, stating that "this should belong in a criticisms section, if at all", and only edits this page and the BYU law school page. I am aware that GDC recruits heavily from that law school. I don't necessarily object to his contention that my entry might belong in a different section than I have placed it, but it peeves me that it just keeps getting deleted, instead of moved. There is no talk page for this entry, so I have been unable to initiate discussion with this user. 69.144.136.45 (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

    It looks like the case mentioned is in the article now. Incidentally, when making edits to that article, edit comments would be helpful. There are five successive edits by four editors without edit comments. Three of those edits were made by anons or editors with no edits to other articles. The involved parties might want to register for accounts to reduce the confusion. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

    User:Onetz53 and ISurv1vor

    User is directly involved in the article above, as shown by viewing the corresponding images on the page in which s/he is admittingly the copyright holder, hence using the article as self-promotion of the game. User does not seem to understand the basic Misplaced Pages guidelines as shown in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/ISurv1vor. MuZemike (talk) 06:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

    Behgjet Pacolli

    Resolved – Semi-protected. MER-C 13:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

    The article has been hijacked by single purpose accounts clearly linked to the subject: . Watch this case closely. Colchicum (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

    Semi-protected by Alex Bakharev until the 31st. Bump us if it happens again. MER-C 13:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

    User:Hm2k

    Has added links to his personal blog as references to material he has added to articles:

    He was given a coi warning 09:58, 14 June 2008 by Herbythyme after restoring the link in E-mail address.

    Since then he restored the link in MagicISO on 12:22, 30 July 2008 after it was removed and was aware that his link in E-mail address remained when he edited the sentence containing the link on 11:09, 21 September 2008.

    Previous discussions

    After participating in the discussion above with EdJohnston, Hm2k has decided to restore his personal website as a source to E-mail address . --Ronz (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

    The discussion from Ed's Page
    The following content has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability.

    I prepared this for WP:COIN, but thought it would be better to find a less threatening approach given the other dispute he's in with me. Herbythyme doesn't have time to address it, but thinks someone should:

    Has added links to a website that is identical to his username:

    He was given a coi warning 09:58, 14 June 2008 by Herbythyme after restoring the link in E-mail address.

    Since then he restored the link in MagicISO on 12:22, 30 July 2008 after it was removed and was aware that his link in E-mail address remained when he edited the sentence containing the link on 11:09, 21 September 2008.

    I couldn't find any new additions of the link, so I think it got through that he shouldn't be adding them. Maybe all he needs is a friendly reminder by someone other than myself? --Ronz (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

    He's certainly not been eager to hear from you lately. This is not a strong 'link abuse' case because he does a lot of regular editing, not just link addition. Lately he's not been friendly in Talk discussions, but that's hard to put down as a policy violation. He also does participate in article Talk. If you believe the link addition is ongoing, consider applying to have the link put on the spam blacklist. Then offer him the option of presenting his case at WP:COIN if he doesn't want it blacklisted. EdJohnston (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
    I agree. I don't think it's ongoing. He edits mostly articles that are poorly sourced and contain linkspam, so the links he's added are no worse than what he usually encountered. He's seen me cleaning up the inappropriate sources and links, and hasn't commented on any of it that I recall. Thanks for taking a look. --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
    Let's face it, this is all bullshit. Ronz has decided to start a personal vendetta against me. Citing oneself is not prohibited, See: Misplaced Pages:No_original_research#Citing_oneself. There is no COI. Cut the crap. --Hm2k (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
    You might be able to cite yourself if you were a recognized authority. You'd need to have reliable sources commenting on your work to establish that. Even in that case, it's better to wait for others to add the link. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
    According to the article, I can cite myself if I am an expert on the subject. Now the reason why I did cite myself, is because I'd spent the time researching it, thus making me an expert on the subject. Without the links, the accompanying facts aren't relevant as they would have no citation. And right now, Ronz is removing the links anyway, so it's all pointless. --Hm2k (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
    Your web site doesn't qualify: If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person.. A self-published site is not a reliable publication, and except for trivial biographical facts about a person (if the WP article were about yourself) it can't be used. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
    What is the criteria for being a reliable publication? --Hm2k (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
    See Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources. Essentially, we can cite newspapers, magazines, published books, edited websites like www.cnet.com that have an editorial policy and employ regular paid reporters. Per WP:SPS we aren't supposed to use personal websites. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
    And what if no such article exists covering a particular issue at present? Do you leave it with no citation, or use the best possible citation you can find available to you? --Hm2k (talk) 10:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
    If no reliable source can be found that comments on the issue, then we should be silent. We're not supposed to do our own research; we just reflect what the published references say. WP:V has more. EdJohnston (talk) 13:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

    I'm taking this to COIN given Hm2k's reintroduction of the link. --Ronz (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

    Discussion here: Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Hm2k --Ronz (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
    The above is an extended discussion that has been collapsed for improved usability.

    My read is that Hm2k is adding the link in because there is no better one to use as a source that he can find. This is based on his last comment in the discussion above. Clearly, "It's better than nothing" is rarely a good guideline on Misplaced Pages. Arakunem 15:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

    So we're in agreement that there is no COI. --Hm2k (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
    Well, I didn't say that what you're doing is not problematic. The biggest problem with your links is that they are not reliable sources as defined in the policy I linked. That right there introduces a problem with including them. The fact that you are linking to yourself raises some COI concerns that go beyond what is normally covered by WP:SPS, as the material on your site has not been published or reviewed elsewhere. Arakunem 16:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
    Since this editor's personal web site, hm2k.com, is not a reliable source, the link should be removed. His own work (apparently not cited by others) is hardly so famous that it needs a mention in a general article like E-mail address. Since there has been plenty of discussion, and lots of explanation of our policy, I would argue that a {{uw-spam3}} warning could be left on this editor's Talk page. What do others think? People shouldn't get an infinite number of chances when the policy is so clear. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
    I agree that the link should go. It should not be hard to find a RS stating that "it is hard to regex every possible email address permutation". (If it IS hard, then maybe the statement needs to be re-evaluated). As far as the spam-3 goes, personally I consider this discussion to be filling that role at the moment, provided the discussion actually continues. As I said above, I got the impression from the talk on your page, that Hm2k understood the RS problem with his link, but kept it as "better than nothing". If my read was correct, then HM needs to understand that "better than nothing" is actually not. Once the link is removed, after all the policies have been explained and applied, restoring the link will have to be treated as disruptive. Arakunem 16:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
    So you are saying I cannot restore the link? If so, I'd suggest you recommend an alternative source. --Hm2k (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
    If an article contains a statement whose truth you want to question, and it has no reliable source, why not propose removing it on the Talk page? Adding a self-published source for such a claim is not accepted as being the right way to go. In this particular case the statement does not seem very surprising, since people who have used regular expressions are aware they have limited expressive power (cf. any computer science textbook that discusses formal languages). Here's the statement you wanted to provide a cite for:

    Trying to match these restrictions is an extremely difficult and complex task, often resulting in long regular expressions that are too hard to actually be practical.

    I'd be willing to retain that sentence even without a cite, maybe replacing an extremely difficult and complex task with a complex task. If you still object to that sentence unless it has a citation, let's get rid of the sentence. EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
    I actually warned this editor about COI here in June of this year. I do see this as a clear conflict of interest and an attempt to promote the user's own website. I do not consider that this editor should be permitted to place a link to his website under any guise whatsoever. --Herby 12:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
    Any kind of ban on my website will have an undesired effect. I do not tolerate restrictions. Further more, the citation was not for self promotion, but instead proof to show I had authority on the statement as I show clear research on the subject. However I'm happy to keep the statement without any kind of citation to avoid further conflicts. --Hm2k (talk) 11:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
    Hum - I do not tolerate restrictions. Such words may also have an "undesired effect" in a collaborative environment. --Herby 12:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
    Then we're agreed that no further action needs to be taken at this time. --Hm2k (talk) 10:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

    User Azambataro and TIBCO marketing

    articles

    Azambataro is a marketing writer for Tibco Software and a coi spa on Misplaced Pages.
    (Just a basic post here on my way offline for the evening.) — Athaenara ✉ 03:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

    Request for injunction against Cold Fusion investor

    Resolved – Not a COI issue. Jehochman 13:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

    User:Pcarbonn is an investor in cold fusion pseudoscience that has been promoting the ideas here on-wiki. He has crowed about his successful POV-pushing here in item 18. Since this user has a business that has the potential to receive income from a cold fusion enterprise based on thin films, I ask that he be banned from editing cold fusion related pages.

    ScienceApologist (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

    SA, your concerns are important. But our COI policy states, "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Misplaced Pages, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." The italics are mine to emphasize the key point. I have a question and some advice. Question: do you feel you have strong evidence that this user is using these articles to advance his own interests against those of the project? Please bear in mind that Christians edit the article on Jesus to add Christian POV's and as long as they are significant and verifiable and pegged to reliable sources we do not claim a conflict of interest. Has this guy been eeleting any significant verifiable views other than his own? If the answer to both questions is yes, then you have a COI case. But in the meantime, I have a suggestion: hold this editor to the highest standards of NOR, V, and NPOV. Make sure any views he adds are significant and verifiable and from reliable sources. Make sure he never removes any views that are significant and verifiable. Make sure all his views maintain the neutral presentation of diverse views. If he fails to do this correct him but try - at least try - gently to encourage him to abide by our policies.
    I share your concerns but do not think that his busness means he cannot edit articles he cares about or knows about as long as he complies with our policies and works collaboratively with other editos who comply with out policies. So in my view no ban should be automatic, or so simple. Does this make sense to you, at least as a provisional plan? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
    I actually think the New Energy Times article answers your question in the affirmative. He is intending to tilt coverage of cold fusion toward a POV that advances it as a legitimate enterprise which is position about which Misplaced Pages must remain neutral. The fact that he has a company which stands to benefit monetarily from an active cold fusion research program based on the idea that there are low energy nuclear reactions happening in certain thin film applications adds up to me that this particular user probably shouldn't be editing anymore. I'm thinking of the integrity of the encyclopedia here. I have no problem with Pcarbonn continuing to add his input on the talk pages, but his advocacy in article space is extremely problematic. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
    A ban should not be automatic, but I support SA's assertion that Pcarbonn is pushing the POV that cold fusion is valid to a disruptive degree, and since he has a conflict of interest, this should not be permitted. Looie496 (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
    Well, disruptive editing is also a violation of policy. Do you think there would be any value to seek mediation for disruptive edition before seeking a ban? If there is a consensus he is a disruptive editor, then you are taking the right course. But have you already doen an RfC? I suggest doing that and seeing what a wider group of editors think - not just on the substance of cold fusion but on issues of NPOV and disruptive editing i.e. content policies - before seeking a topic ban. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
    We've tried mediation in the past. Unfortunately, it turned out to be a real dud. I think that a simple ban from article-space would do wonders, though. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
    I do not feel comfortable banning someone unilaterally, but I think if you provided some examples of edit difs where he clearly violated NPOV, and here he was clearly disruptive, and also diffs that show the failure of mediation, other admins will give serious consideration to this. You are asking for a big thing and I really am sympathetic but we need more agreement among admins, and for that you need to provide some details to support your case. If you get no response here, my advice is (1) bend over backwards to be conciliatory to him and then the next time there is a clear example of violation of NPOV or disruptive editing, (2) present your case at AN/I as a demonstrable pattern of disruptive POV pushing editing. COI explains the pattern of violating DIS and NPOV but the hear of the case is the pattern of disregarding these policies. Put some evidence here and let's see what other admins have to say; otherwise try my advice and go the AN/I route when you have abundant and clear cause. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
    Take a look at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Cold fusion which was successfully closed on 16 April, 2008, as well as its Talk page. Pcarbonn also gives a summary of the events at the Cold fusion article on his User page. Cold fusion is still labelled as a Good Article at this moment. Usually to show COI editing you need to provide diffs of bad editing on Misplaced Pages. None have been given in this report, so far. The cited article at New Energy Times, mentioned by SA as 'crowing,' looks to me within the bounds of good faith. Consider opening up an WP:RFC/U if you have data to present. The space limitations of COIN don't allow room for complex cases to be handled successfullly EdJohnston (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
    That mediation was far from "successful". I was railroaded out of it by a jerk of a mediator. People who dig will see the history. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
    You say : "A jerk of a mediator" ? Please remain civil. Those who dig the history will see that this is not the first time you should have.
    First off, COI/N has no power to ban anyone. We try to resolve COI disputes by educating those accused in understanding and following Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Our objective is to turn them into constructive contributors. The place to take problems with editors who failed to abide by multiple levels of dispute resolution up through mediation is Arbcom or, if a user's conduct is so disruptive as to require urgent attention from an administrator, then Adminstrators Noticeboard/Incidents. However, it is unlikely that they will censure an editor over off-wiki activities that are not pursued disruptively on Misplaced Pages itself (although they may be taken as evidence against their "good faith").
    Please note, though, that disagreement over content is not a sin, unless it is exercised in a continuing disruptive fashion. I concur with Ed that the NET article to which you’ve linked appears unexceptional. The “crowing” appears to be chiefly over cold fusion being portrayed as “controversial” rather than “beyond the pale” – and I think no one disputes that it is indeed quite controversial. Unless you can provide diffs that clearly demonstrate evidence of contentious COI editing on Misplaced Pages, I’m afraid you have presented us with nothing to work with here. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

    This was brought to my attention.. ScienceApologist, why are you revealing the real world name of a user? Are you certain that this user has consented to be identified? A quick check of his current userpage does not show a disclosure, although I may have missed it. I would think that you would be particularly sensitive to the need not to out people. Please either demonstrate where this connection was made, or redact your connecting the users. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 22:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

    There is a current thread on ANI about this. The user is using a contraction of their real name, and previously named themselves on their user page according to the ANI thread. Yours, Verbal chat 22:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks. The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Outing. I commented there. It's not clear to me that this user wants their name associated NOW. It was removed, after all. We honor requests to go less connected all the time. ++Lar: t/c 22:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
    ScienceApologist, perhaps it would help if you would explain (here or elsewhere) how his company could profit from changing the reputation of cold fusion. I don't see cold fusion discussed on that company web site. If he has a strong financial stake in the matter he should disclose it, at the very least. Olorinish (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
    So, I linked to a report from some of the Illinois cold fusion proponents who think that thin film reactions are associated with transmutation of elements at, say, room temperature. The company in question is involved in attempts to sell material support for such research. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
    What is the name of the company involved? How do you know Pcarbonn has a financial stake? Since Pcarbonn has posted on multiple cold-fusion-related sites with his real name, there is no expectation of confidentiality. Olorinish (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

    Re. opening statement to this thread, "He has crowed about his successful POV-pushing here in item 18". I find that misrepresentative of the statement linked to, which is not extreme and whose main thrust is that both sides of the debate should be represented in the article (an accordance with WP:NPOV). The statement does say, "One editor, who calls himself ScienceApologist, fiercely defended the view that cold fusion is 'contrary to current theory, so it's impossible.' " If that is true, one has to question who is POV-pushing. Ty 03:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

    For the record, ScienceApologist already introduced a COI, which was declined. Its accusations are baseless. Furthermore, when Shkedi and Shanahan, 2 scientists who published anti-CF papers, contributed to the article, nobody complained. Wasn't there any conflict of interest ? Furthermore, COI complaints only make sense when policies such as NPOV are in danger. This is not the case here, as all my edits are fully backed by proper sources, and are done wihth the purpose of improving the quality of the article and presenting both sides of the controversy appropriately. I have made numerous anti-CF edits, and can provide some if necessarry. As somebody says, who is POV-pushing here ? Pcarbonn (talk) 06:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
    As someone who has been editing at the cold fusion page for over a year, I would say that Pcarbonn has been POV-pushing on many issues, such as the infrared image issue, the Oriani reference, and the Physical Review C article issue. I am not convinced he has a financially invested in the field (although I am not sure if he has denied that), and I have asked ScienceApologist for details on that assertion. Olorinish (talk) 07:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
    They are no references to infrared image, Oriani, or Physical Review C in the version of the article that ScienceApologist is challenging. So, why make such a big issue with it ? Even if I had POV-pushed them, which I don't recall, I would have failed. Also, I do not have a share in any company, nor have I invested in cold fusion research, so I don't have any fincanial interest tied with cold fusion. Again, even if I had, I should be judged on my editing behavior, not on my financial holdings. You have still not shown any example of where I have damaged the quality of the article. Pcarbonn (talk) 12:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

    Editors don't generally (ever?) have a COI with a field of study. They may have a COI with respect to an organization or biography. It seems that if there is no violation of WP:NPOV there is no problem. If NPOV is the issue, then it should be addressed elsewhere, and without reference to the real life identity of the editor. Jehochman 13:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

    NOTE: I have redacted all mention (that I could find) of the name of the investor, since ScienceApologist has not done so after several days. This included editing his remarks, as well as the heading of this section, as a diff will show, but I felt I had no choice. If I missed some please do them for me, thanks. ++Lar: t/c 15:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

    My real name is Pierre Carbonnelle. I have nothing to hide. Pcarbonn (talk) 10:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks for sorting that out. Perhaps you can put this info back on your user page, it will save a lot of confusion going forward. Absent such a confirmation there, or as you've given now, and given that you removed it before, that you wanted to disassociate was a reasonable inference. We all need to err on the side of caution. ++Lar: t/c 10:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
    I agree with and support your general principle. ScienceApologist should not have disclosed my real name. The first step before discussing COI must be to establish the improper behavior of the disputed user. In this case, SA has still failed to do that step. Discussing presumed intent is therefore irrelevant, and the disclosure of my name to trace such intent is therefore unjustified. I suggest that the COI noticeboard do require the establishment of improper behavior before allowing inquiry of persons in real life. Pcarbonn (talk) 13:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

    FWIW, this is not the first time SA has inappropriately sought someone's off-wiki identity to use as a bludgeon. See my complaint here about the time SA went after me and the subsequent oversighting of said material. Ronnotel (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

    Evil Avatar

    Evil Avatar Edit History

    This article is repeatedly having edits reverted by an unregistered user of the name 'EvilAvatar'. Evil Avatar is a popular online gaming forum which recently had several administrators and a large segment of its user base depart for another site. Any edits mentioning this fact are being repeatedly reverted with the comment 'Please stop vandalizing this page!'

    It is highly likely that this user is Philip Hansen, the owner of the Evil Avatar website, given that the user is both using Mr. Hansen's online moniker and that this behavior is in-line with the way all mention of this split have been systematically expunged from his own site.

    Misplaced Pages, however, is not Mr. Hansen's personal webpage, and the repeated removal of relevant, verifiable information from a Misplaced Pages entry because he does not want it proliferated is not acceptable behavior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Commandar (talk • contribs) 20:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

    User:80.44.181.2 and Naomi Westerman

    The IP above is the manager of the subject of the above article, as admitted in the AfD here. MuZemike (talk) 23:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

    The editor who blanked the page and asked for the article to be deleted almost certainly is an actor she's been fighting with as his prior edits added personal information about her only a few know. FYI80.44.181.2 (talk) 23:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
    No I am not an actor or a he some person was fighting with, I came to Naomi Westerman bc an article I watch-listed had blp violations added by a anonymous editor so I checked out the IPs other contributions, it was Naomi Westerman article. I saw Naomi Westerman did not have sources so I looked for sources. I couldn't find any sources just blogs and stuff. So I took out the blp problems and I prod'ed it, but blp violations went back in by this person who says they are an agent. So now I took it to Afd. RetroS1mone talk 02:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
    Hardly notable to begin with, and due to the BLP issues the article is now deleted. Wizardman 18:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - Having read that discussion, I'm not convinced that either the 'Naomi' or the 'Louis' participating in the discussion were who they claimed they were; let's keep a watch on this in case of re-creation. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

    Kevin Powell

    • Kevin Powell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Could use some input and/or assistance at this article. I removed copyright infringement, here, in August and since noticed it several times subjected to blanking w/out explanation. I restored and advised the single IP editor involved, here. I also gave him/her a COI notice. After several warnings, the IP editor came to my talk page to profess (in part) that "My edits are to omit offensive and misleading material about the subject and his brand. My edits are in his interest and have been approved by him." I went to look at the material that had been removed, examined the sources and determined that much of the material being removed was from questionable sources and possibly undue even if properly sourced. However, there also appeared to be an effort to whitewash the article. I added a COI tag to the article itself and included some sourcing and balance. Today, another single purpose contributor to the article (I do not know if he is also the IP), has asked me at my talk page to bring the COI tag up for community discussion. He also edited the text of the article, here, to change the sentence, "During the campaign, Towns made frequent reference to Powell's self-professed early history of violence against women, issues Powell has discussed in his early writings and has indicated he has overcome through therapy" to omit the word "against women." In edit summary, he says, "The references to violence launched by Towns' campaign was not exclusively about women, it was about violence in general. This is a fact, see the press." The source of the sentence is a New York Times article entitled "House Race in Brooklyn Focuses on Women"; the relevant quote is "Over the last few months, Mr. Towns has been quick to criticize his opponent, consistently raising one issue: Mr. Powell revealed in an autobiographical book five years ago that he had engaged in acts of violence against women earlier in his life." There's no doubt that the article has been used as a battleground by detractors of the subject. Just a few days ago, I got to clean up some of that. But I believe that the tag is necessary as long as Mr. Powell's fans and supporters continue to edit the article in a way that does not accord with WP:NPOV. Thoughts? -- Moonriddengirl 11:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

    Yamashita's gold

    An anonymous editor (the IP Editor is using different IPs) who claims to be a lawyer, and has spoken to one of the lawyers tangentially related to the case, is editing the article based on several different court documents and newspaper editorials. The IP Editor is trying to add the vacated portions of the trial into the article by using court documents and newspaper editorials.

    I and other editors (including Third Opinion) have told the IP Editor they need to supply secondary reliable sources, but they are insistent on editing the article by using primary sources and newspaper editorials. Some of the newspaper editorials used are human-interest pieces that just have a mention of the original trial and include misinformation about pertinent data that involves the Roxas v Marcos trial.

    Finding secondary reliable sources pertaining to the Roxas v Marcos trial are almost nonexistent. The IP Editor’s involvement with the case is in direct conflict of interest, and the edits are not neutral. Jim (talk) 13:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

    ____________________________

    There is no absolutely conflict of interest in the IP version. Merely being a lawyer does not create a conflict. Talking to a tangentially involved lawyer does not create a conflict. No material provided came from the tangentially involved lawyer, so it does not represent original research. See the talk page for the article for the IP's suggested version. All material proposed is based upon a neutral description of what transpired in the legal proceeding as reported in the actual court records as well as numerous contemporary news reports from mainstream newspapers. JimBob takes the position that appellate court decisions can never be used as a source on Misplaced Pages and the news reports are all editorial opinion pieces. That is a preposterous position. The appellate court decisions (as opposed to pleadings filed by one party in the trial court, or one-sided trial testimony) will summarize the pleadings and proceedings of the trial court, and thus the appellate court decisions become the most reliable secondary source as to what transpired in a given legal proceeding. Furthermore, since the decision is the measured work of judges in an adversarial system subject to review by the opposing attorneys and often other judges in other courts, the decisions should be considered hyper-peer reviewed secondary sources. That being said, even if the court decisions are considered primary sources, they can still be used according to Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. As stated in WP:PSTS, “Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Misplaced Pages…” Use of primary sources can be used to “make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge.” The use of the court records in the IP version is consistent with these guidelines. Finally, the IP version does not rely solely on court decisions. The fact that Roxas and his successors were successful in establishing in a court of law that Roxas found the treasure and that it was stolen by Marcos has been established in the IP version through the use of the following reliable secondary sources -- New York Daily News, Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Metropolitan News-Enterprise, Manila Standard Today, and even a press release from the Office of Solicitor General, Republic of the Philippines. These secondary sources are reliable and verifiable, and to dismiss these news reports as well as a press release from the Office of Solicitor General, Republic of the Philippines as mere opinion editorials is nonsense. Look at the sources!

    Finally, JimBob distorts the nature of the only other third opinion provided on this dispute. The only third opinion in this matter was provided by Fr33kman. It was his opinion that the court decision could be used so long as party allegations were identified as such -- as mere allegations. The IP version complies with this recommendation in that it described Roxas' allegation as just that, allegations. The IP version prefaces the alleged material from the court case with “The evidence and testimony submitted by Roxas alleged…” and “Roxas went on to allege….” So, the IP version complies with Fr33kman's suggestions. Fr33kamn did not address the reliability and verifiability of the news reports or the other sources.

    It is my position that JimBob's fanatical behavior in distorting the truth about Yamashita's treasure could only be the result of an undisclosed conflict of interest of his own. I am not the first editor to be bullied by JimBob concerning thoughtful edits to this article. See the Archived disputes with other members including member Grant.

    67.120.59.46 (talk) 00:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

    Paid editing

    On the freelance job board getafreelancer.com, I stumbled upon yet another commercial request for doing PR work on WP. Interestingly, one of the bidders showcased his previous work naming the two articles above. _R_ (talk) 03:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

    Comment 75.38.186.104 just removed the link to getafreelancer.com. I have restored the link. Themfromspace (talk) 00:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
    The only significant contributer to Paul Di Leo outside of User:Psteven08 is 208.215.25.131. I think its safe to say that this is the IP of the SEO man, although it seems he didn't leave his guard down many other times since I can't identify any other articles edited by him with a COI. Please note the amount of AfDs participated in, as the IP could have been used as a second vote. Themfromspace (talk) 04:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
    I don't think the AFD discussions are likely to be the same editor; they were a couple years back, and a couple of the edits then seem to tie the IP to a mostly-retired editor in good standing. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
    I took a look at the Paul Di Leo article; it was created by Psteven08 (talk · contribs), and I've taken it to AFD as not meeting WP:MUSIC, from my view. The John Safer article looks to be far more likely to meet guidelines. Interesting thing: it was created by Tomfolkes (talk · contribs). The link provided above suggests that the same person was involved with those articles, but I don't see any crossover of a single editor that was substantive; the other major contributor to Safer was Pilot03 (talk · contribs). I'm wondering about sockpuppetry here, and if there are other articles we should be looking at. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
    The Paul Di Leo article is definitely not notable and contains a strong hint of COI. Whether or not it was paid is not for me to tell. I'm a member of the free lancer website and I have seen some of the brag boards created for Wiki pages. Saying that, I would not be surprised to see it as a paid work. But, the John Safer article is tougher to tell. Yes, it does have that same hint of COI, but the notability of the article seems to be a lot better than the article about Di Leo. I'll give a !vote at the AfD for Di Leo, but I wouldn't take Safer's article to AfD. (maybe just a cleanup for COI issues) Undead Warrior (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
    The Safer article does a lot better at expressing notability, so I'm not as concerned about that one - the subject seems to be quite recognized in his field. I'm a little more concerned that we've got a wave of freelancers writing potentially promotional articles for pay. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
    Another issue is that the Safer article has many photographs uploaded by the author of the article, tagged as "self-made" by Tomfolkes (talk · contribs). Either that user is a rather good professional photographer who went around the country and photographed most of Safer's larger works, and obtained access to smaller works in private collections, or that claim is phony. What we're looking at here, I suspect, are photos taken over the years from the sculptor's own collection. This raises some difficult copyright questions. Is "Tom Folkes" an agent of Safer for copyright purposes. authorized to license those images under the GFDL? What does it mean when an anonymous party executes a GFDL release? Do we delete all the images now, or what? --John Nagle (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
    He is taking a picture of a copyrighted work and claiming that it is his own work. That is a false license for one and the images should be deleted. Also, I have a high suspicion that Tomfolkes (talk · contribs) is in on the whole paid editing scheme from getafreelancer.com. Undead Warrior (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
    See this for the pictures. Undead Warrior (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
    That's fascinating. The web site at has many very similar images. But the ones uploaded to Misplaced Pages are bigger; they have more detail and better color balance. Whoever did the upload had access to better versions of those images than the ones on Safer's web site. Incidentally, Safer's web site has a link to this Misplaced Pages article. So it's likely that this was all done with Safer's knowledge and cooperation. Still, "Tom Folkes" can't issue a copyright release for Safter. Do we ask Safer for a GFDL release, or delete the images? --John Nagle (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
    Ask for a GFDL release. Undead Warrior (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
    If the artist wants to give us encyclopedic photos we should only say one thing, "thank you". If somebody is doing paid editing, they can post their work to the article talk page and leave a note for us here asking for an uninvolved editor to review their work and consider it for article space. As long as people don't edit war or act disruptively, it is really none of our business what real life relationships they might have. Jehochman 20:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

    User:Bkonop

    Bkonop (talk · contribs) is removing sourced controversy material from Ben Konop. I've issued him a COI warning. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 04:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

    That said, the reliability/neutrality of the controversial material needs looking at. "Konop has been labeled by some a carpet bagger" because someone said it on a blog? The whole "controversy" section - collecting a laundry list of negative things he's done, then bagging it up under an original conclusion that "Konop's brief tenure as a politician has been shrouded in controversy" smells of WP:SYNTH.
    I've moved it to Talk for discussion. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
    Commented there. Arakunem 14:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

    Les Fradkin

    This article was tagged for COI soon after creation as probable autobiographical, given the identity between the creating user name and the subject name. Since then it has had a very large number edits by IP users (predominantly in the Colorado area, and often with little interest in editing articles other than this one). The COI notice (and other notices were deleted). I restored the COI notice last week, it was deleted; restored again, etc. It is currently restored, but I anticipate its re-removal. None of the IP editors appear interested in "taking it to Talk". AllyD (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

    It doesn't actually look too bad as an article. Main problem is - one endemic with pop/rock musician bios - general lack of sourcing and, where sources are given, no indication of which citation applies to which text. I've added the appropriate tags. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

    COI on the Eli Soriano Article

    Journeyist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User is a confirmed member of the religious group led by the subject and armed with a blog that does nothing but defend the subject even if newspaper and other reliable, third-party, published sources' reports abound regarding his (the subject's) unlawful activities (currently wanted by the Philippine government). Actually the said editor only edits this page. Another member Darbook has just recently been banned for using a sockpuppet to make POV edits to this and related articles. Shannon Rose (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

    Page protection of Eliseo Soriano couldn't hurt because of the canvassing on the blog. Themfromspace (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

    Asset recovery

    • Talk:Asset recovery - I edited this page, but wanted to get another editor to review the changes on it to avoid COI after reading the conflict of interest guidelines. I work in the asset recovery industry. The edits I made to the asset recovery page were to develop the page to include the basic parts of asset recovery. Athaenara reverted the edit temporarily and suggested I post here so someone could review it. I want to avoid the appearance of evil. Thanks Gwheato (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
    This looks OK to me. Keep from mentioning companies or the like, and you've made a pretty fine addition to Asset recovery. I'm happy to back up the addition. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


    COI Medical degree

    • Medical degree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The editor "Naturstud" is a Naturopath who has been editing a lot of medically related pages to include information about naturopathy. I have no problem with this in general. However, he has been a tendentious editor and has been including a lot of misleading information in the article Medical degree suggesting that those who hold a degree in "naturopathy or naturopathic medicine" (a degree he himself holds) are equivalent to "medical doctors" and that he feels the naturopathy degree that he holds should be classified and listed as a "medical degree" along side the MD, DO, and MBBS degrees. The World Health Organization WHO/IMED disagrees and they have created an internationally recognized list of what is and is not considered a "medical degree". This list published by the WHO is utilized by the "board of medicine" in pretty much every country in the world. They use this list as a guide to decide who holds a recognized "medical degree" and who is eligible and who is not eligible for a "medical license". Naturopathy is not on this list. Naturopathic medicine is classified as a "complementary and alternative medical practice" along side Chinese medicine, homeopathic medicine, reiki, ayurveda, acupuncture, etc. Naturstud refuses to list his degree along side these other professions even though they are always grouped together, he instead insists on classifying his degree as a "medical degree" even though even in the US and Canada (where he obtained his naturopathy degree) it is NOT recognized as such. Myself and a few other editors have agreed to allow Naturstud to edit the article Medical degree to include his degree with the exception that he also equally include ALL other "complementary and alternative medicine" degrees equally as per Wiki (NPOV) policy. He refuses and has continued to push and promote his profession on[REDACTED] at the expense of others.

    Thank you for your help. Jwri7474 (talk) 04:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

    William M. Gray and User:William M. Connolley

    I'm seeking an opinion here on a potential COI issue. User:William M. Connolley is a member of the RealClimate blog, which, while being a respected blog, is still unpublished and unreviewed. Two years ago, WMC and his colleagues wrote an extended criticism of Gray on the RC blog. Most of it was scientific, but it also questioned his scientific practices and criticised Gray for his "seat of the pants" approach.

    Recently, WMC edit-warred to keep an external link to that criticism (which he himself wrote with the rest of the RC team).

    Now, regardless of what anyone feels about the RC criticism (and I happen to agree with it, BTW), do we really want to allow any editor to write something critical on a blog, then edit-war to link it from the BLP of a political opponent? There is already well-sourced criticism of Gray's views in the article itself, so there's really no need to include the RC link, especially when it's the author of the RC piece that is warring to keep it.

    Is this not a textbook example of why the COI guideline was created in the first place?

    Maybe I'm overreacting, but that's why I came here to seek input. ATren (talk) 13:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

    I actually think the suggestion of COI is irrelevant (as it so often is). What's at issue here is the portion of WP:EL that says "In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links." This material doesn't meet the standard for a BLP source, and per WP:EL if it's derogatory and not reliable to be used as a source, it shouldn't be included as an external link. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
    That question is already being addressed on BLP/N, but I believe the COI issue is different, because I think this creates a dangerous precedent. WMC can essentially fast track his viewpoint into Misplaced Pages: he writes a RC piece, then comes here and links to it, without it ever being reviewed or edited by a third party. And linking it in a BLP further adds to the concern, because it effectively gives an editor the ability to use Misplaced Pages as a platform criticise his ideological opponents. I think that's dangerous. ATren (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
    I agree with SarcasticIdealist that this is not technically a COI issue. The big issue here, apart from the BLP issues, is as you rightly pointed out ATren, that WMC can write whatever he feels on the blog, then link to it here to support an assertion. This usually falls more under the realm of Self-published sources moreso than COI. Its kind of a reverse-COI: Instead of using[REDACTED] to advance an off-wiki position (COI), he's using an off-wiki source to support an on-wiki assertion. BLPN should have the teeth to quickly resolve this, but WP:SPS and WP:EL certainly may apply here too. The issue really hinges on whether the RC Blog is a reliable source. Blogs usually are not, but this one may be an exception. The discussion at BLPN seems to be the main discussion, so its probably best to keep it all in one place. Arakunem 14:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
    I consider RealClimate to be a WP:RS on climate change, and an exceptionally good one. The site's contributors are published experts in the field, many of them notable ( Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, William Connolley, Stefan Rahmstorf, David Archer.) Quoting from WP:RS on News organizations:
    "For information about academic topics, such as physics or ancient history, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories. Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context. For example, news reports often fail to adequately report methodology, errors, risks, and costs associated with a new scientific result or medical treatment."
    It is precisely because of these limitations of normally reliable news organizations that a treatment of the topic by experts is so useful. The attribution to the RealClimate article in question is not William Connolley but "group". William's expertise and contributions to articles on climate change are valuable to Misplaced Pages, and I do not see them as a conflict of interest. We are fortunate to have a knowledgeable editor.
    However, RealClimate is self-published. WP:BLP makes it absolutely clear that self-published sources cannot be used in a BLP unless written by the subject of the article. This would be true whether the post was the RealClimate blog, a website, or a book. I oppose the inclusion of text from RealClimate in a BLP because it is self-published, but I do not agree with the basic assertion that Connolley referencing RealClimate (generally) is somehow a WP:COI or is otherwise harmful. Mishlai (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
    Categories:
    Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard Add topic